Brakes & Tires - Wearing out Quickly?

Hi...I have a 2001 ML320. It has 32000 miles on it, and I am ready to put my SECOND set of front brakes, my first set of rear brakes, and 4 new tires! The car is usually on the freeways and is never abused. Is this normal for this car? Do others have similar experiences?

Comments

are you sure you do not play the cat and mouse game i see everyday on the freeway.you know,follow too close then apply the brakes speed up again apply the brakes.i see it everyday.bet its hard on brakes and tires.

My OE brake pads were 80% worn before 25K and needed replacement. My tires were replaced at 28K. My attitude towards OE tires is different from Zues' but your numbers are not too far off from what I've seen and heard.

Do you drive with both feet? I can tell you right now if you do that's where your brake wear is coming from. Left foot just barely resting on the brake pedal will apply enough pressure to have the brakes "drag." This not only dramatically reduces the life of your brakes, but your brake lights will also burn out quick, not to mention increases your likelihood of a rear end accident because people can't tell if you are or are not slowing down. Please don't take offense, I see this on a daily basis, and have worked in an auto repair shop and seen the havoc a two footed driver reek on the car's brakes.

As far as tires go, if the alignment is kept in spec, and they are at the correct pressure and rotated on a regular basis they should last a good long time. Zueslewis is correct also, factory rubber is junk!! I only got 38K out of my factory meats, and trust me they were toasted when I replaced them.

but lots of time in the car business and 3 years with Super Shops (West Coast Regional Manager), I had many opportunities to compare OEM and "aftermarket" tires by the same manufacturer side by side.

Having also worked in service in the car business, I've seen more than my share of tire issues with OEM tires and never saw that level of problems with tires purchased as a consumer's second or third set.

It's just my opinion, but knowing that specs are different for OEM vs "storebought" tires, there's enough of a difference to say there's a difference.

if your car comes OEM with a model and size of tire that is also sold commercially (like many of the new Toyotas and Subarus come with Potenza RE92s, and the 4Runner comes new with Michelin Cross Terrains), are these tires made especially cheaply in a special batch just for the manufacturers to put on the brand new cars?

If not, then surely some OEM tires are just as good as the successive sets of tires, for makes and models that bother to put decent tires on new cars.

The SUV tire issue is a separate one - regardless of how off-pavement worthy an SUV may be, it is certainly true that most of the manufacturers choose tires for these vehicles based solely on cost and how smooth and comfy the ride will be, without a whit of concern for snow or off-pavement traction and use.

So are BF Goodrich "Long Trial" T/As (staple for GM full sized SUVs for several years, and of course, the whole Firestone SUV debacle with the ATX, Wilderness, etc. The ATX is one of the sorriest tires ever made.

You'll notice that with tires like the Long Trail T/A, regular stores don't have them in stock - you have to order to replace 1 or 2. BFG/Michelin knows they can't compete with the other brand's tires in that segment, so why market them as retail units?

From the research I've done on tires there are some models that are developed strictly for the OEM business and others that are developed and sold as aftermarket replacement units. I think almost every OE tire is available as a replacement unit as well.

Some tire models are developed in close concert with the automaker as they have specific tire needs for a particular car. For example, the Goodyear Eagle GA was developed for the Cadillac Allante and Buick Reatta. IIRC, the Eagle GA was the first speed rated touring tire.

The Bridgestone RE92 is similar in that Bridgestone positions it as the tire they want to sell to the automakers. Look carefully and you will see the RE92 is sold in a huge variety of sizes and in multiple speed ratings to meet the various needs of the automaker.

I find it extremely hard to believe that a tire maker like Michelin for example produces a cheapo price point tire model for the automakers and an expensive top quality tire model for the aftermarket. Tires like the Energy MXV4 Plus or the Cross Terrain are two of the best tires made in the industry in terms of quality and consistency. The notion that Michelin makes a cut rate version and a top notch version is very very hard to swallow.

I haven't seen the "OEM - garbage, tire store - good tire" trend with Michelin. I have seen this with BFG, Goodyear and especially Firestone.

While OEM tires are available as replcements, they usually aren't in the limelight of the comapny's marketing strategy. The BFG Long Trail T/A, for instance, was never in a national ad. It was an OEM tire, and the All-Terrain T/A, the Trail T/A and Mud-Terrain T/A were the advertised models.

P5 I think the factory Dunlop SP5000's are rated at about a 180 or maybe 220 for treadwear. In fact, IIRC, they have a special designation called the SP Sport 5000M (probably M for Mazda)

Then look at the same tire, and I believe you will find the one at the tire rack or your local Dunlop dealer has something like a 340 treadwear rating. (Of course you won't find the 5000M there, you just have to go with the standard 5000)

I was looking at these, and IIRC, the factory rubber installed by Mazda had the lower treadwear ratings.

I have a 2000 ML430 with 24000 miles. The break paddle pulses in/out and the steering also shakes violently. It gets worst when go faster. Has anyone experience anything similar? Is there any hidden recal for such? And will standard waranty cover?

Vehicle manufacturers TELL the tire manufacturers what they want. In one case the list of specs is 2 pages long.

Among these specs is one for rolling resistance, and one of the ways to get rolling resistance is to sacrifice tread wear.

Another way is to lighten the tire. Having a tire with the minimum of material can cause molding problems in the form of cracks and the mold not being properly filled out.

Typically a vehicle manufacturer insists that the OE tire be available in the market place when the vehicle is introduced. What sometimes happens is that tires are shipped gratis to major tire dealers, and payment is due as they are sold. This means that an OE tire will be available , but not necessarily, readily available.

I bought a brand new Nissan Pathfinder in late 1998 that came equipped with a set of Bridgestones. I admit I am not, and have never been a devotee to that brand, and when I had to buy new tires at 14,500 miles, my opinion was solidified. The dead carcasses sported a tread wear factor number of 180. At 45K I bought tire set 3, Cooper Discoverer H/T's. Set number 2 were BFG Radial TA's. Those were car tires and never really seemed proper. I think I'm happy now... RIDE ON! says Arnold Palmer.

Duh! Since magazine test cars and owners look at stopping distances and handling numbers. The factory wants to achieve the best results so they spec a soft fast wearing tire. Which optimizes both so their car looks good.Changing from a V rated 180 OEM tire to a 300-400 T rated tire can easily lengthen stopping distances by 20-30 feet [70 to zero]. Even Worse in rain, same with handling which might decline by 3-5% or more.

The other item is manufactures know that the majority of inexpensive tires are less than safe after 20,000 miles [they assume worst case heating and driver abuse], so they want the ones they supplied to be worn and off the car they built to shift the burden to the owner.

This is not necessarily the case with a premium material tire like oem Michelin especially in V rated and above.

Ever notice that some 2002 cars take 215 feet to stop from 70 mph and some stop in 153 feet.....tire compound and weight on tires is the primary factor........as most brakes will lock the wheels without ABS on a single stop. TIRES!

I've never felt it was wise to get 80K mile tires. You usually must sacrifice handling and braking to get a tire to last that long. I admit I have a set of 60K Michelins for my Buick, but then they'll be worn out in two years.

FWIW, I got 30K from a set of Dunlop SP5000's on that Buick. I retired them at 3/32nds of pretty even tread left.

Just because a tire has half the tread left doesn't mean that it functions anywhere near like a new one!Heat and ozone attack the rubber compound turning it progressively harder and harder [the vulcanization continues].......You should buy a tire that will last 24 months with your type of driving.......for maximum safety and performance.

Generally if 2/32" is legal limit something like 4-5/32" would the the point where a prudent owner would change.

Since tires are the most critical component on the car!

By the way tires are only tested for 8,000 miles then the life is extrapolated based on what happens in the test period.

Many tires on heavy cars are marginally overloaded due to low inflation....internal damage is checkable by xraying them or a sudden change in the amount/position of balance weighs but most owners don't get them precision balanced every 90 days so by the time you feel a problem it is too late!

Whenever you see a rearend wreck think what a better tire with just 5%-10% better friction would have saved.......5,10,15 foot better stopping distance soft vs hard.

the OEM tire on my old Subaru was a white-letter Potenza RE92, and when it came time to replace them, I would always get the OEM because I liked the look. Managed to get more than 40K miles from each set - they weren't too bad, although snow traction was terrible, and the car was an outback.

Apart from that, I have always replaced OEM with Michelins - I am a believer. They are usually quieter and always have better traction, in my experience. Of course, they also cost more, so I guess you still can't have your cake AND eat it too.

I have found that one of the best investments you can make when buying tires is the road hazard warranty. Tires are so susceptible to unexpected damage and "driveability" problems, that having the warranty gives the buyer real leverage over thieving or dismissive tire merchants.

Superior tire are more resistive to road hazards!Cheapo single ply sidewalls [designed for low rolling resistance- better fuel economy] are accidents waiting to happen as are the newer 44 and 51 psi designs......these ballon like tires have little or no reserve in sidewall impacts.

I bought my ML320 at 1998, it had 65.000KM on it, I think it is time to replace it. any suggestion on brand and models, I need it to use in the SNOW in winter beside that just daily use from home to work. I know the size is hard to find, I also own a Nissan Murano a 18" tire, but I worrie about it when I need it.Thank you